Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
..... the second period is rs.35,69,759/-. for the period prior to 1.4.08, the assessees are covered by provisions of retrospectively amended section 73 (1) of the finance act, 2010 which provides that pending reversal of credit may be made as per the formula prescribed under rule 6 (3a) along with interest @ 24% per annum. the assessees have already ..... paid as per commissioners letter dt. 25.10.10, and the assessees have paid the above amount of interest). they are, therefore, covered by the amendment made to the finance act in 2010 for the period upto 31.3.08 and therefore the demand for the period upto 31.3.08 is set aside as not sustainable. as regards the second ..... per jyoti balasundaram the assessees herein, who are manufacturers of pharma products falling under chapter 30 of the first schedule to the central excise act, 1985, manufacture both dutiable goods as well as exempted goods in terms of notification no.4/06 dt. 1.3.06 viz. intravenous fluids falling under sl.no.58 etc. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
..... and seek the pragmatic solution that will best serve the needs of society. in s.j. grange ltd. v. customs and excise commrs. while interpreting a provision in the finance act, 1972, lord denning observed that if the literal construction leads to impracticable results, it would be necessary to do little adjustment so as to make the section workable. therefore, ..... of west bengal and another (2009 (6) scc 364), (ii) jt 2012 3 scc 469 ashok sadarangani and another v. union of india; (iii)sushil suri v. central bureau of investigation and another (2011) 5 scc 708 (iv) cbi v. ravishankar prasad (2009) 6 scc 351 and (v)ram dhan v. state of up and another (2012 5 scc 536), is ..... punjab and sind bank and therefore, no offence was committed by them. it was argued so by relying upon the decision of the supreme court in nikhil merchant v. central bureau of investigation and another in 2008 (9) scc 677. the argument was opposed by cbi on the ground that the appellant and others had not only duped psb .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
..... order sl.no.07/2012 (commissioner) dated 30.10.2012 passed therein. 2. the matter relates to an order passed by the commissioner of customs and central excise, salem under the provisions of service tax, finance act 1994. a show-cause notice was issued stating as follows:- "02.07. on analytical study of activities of ctandc, it is observed that they have ..... lakhs fifty three thousand five hundred and twenty three only) demanded in show cause notice c.no:v/bas/15/144/2009-st.adj scn s.no:15/2011 (commissioner) dated: 28.03.2011) and also i confirm the demand to the tune of rs.37,16,942/- (rupees thirty seven lakh sixteen thousand nine hundred and forty two only) demanded ..... being service tax on the taxable value received for the said service during the period 01.10.2004 to 31.03.2011, from m/s.container tea and commodities, coonoor under proviso to section 73(2) of chapter v of the finance act, 1994; (ii) i demand appropriate interest on the amount demanded at s.no.(i) above from m/s.container .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
..... is allowed. no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. ssn to 1. the secretary ministry of finance, department of revenue, government of india, room no.46, north block, new delhi-110 001.2. central board of excise and customs represented by its chairman, department of revenue, government of india, room no.46, ..... r heard mr.krishna srinivasan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of m/s.s.ramasubramaniam & associates for the petitioner and mr.m.santhanakrishnan, learned senior central government standing counsel appearing for the respondents.2. the petitioner-company calls in question an order passed by the 4th respondent in order no.400432013, ..... finance act, and therefore, the respondents proceeded further and adjudicated the matter and passed order-in-original no.16/2010 s.tax/ch.iv, dated 28.09.2010, demanding the petitioner to pay rs.6,90,60,500/-, as against which, the petitioner moved the appellate authority, namely the cestat(r4) in appeal not st/230/2011 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
..... the credit for the month of march 2008 was taken on the basis of the formula provided for and in accordance with section 73(2) of the finance act, 2010. in the decision reported in 2011 (267) e.l.t. 153 (cited supra), the gujarat high court considered a similar situation. there printing ink was used in the manufacture of ..... hence, in these circumstances, proceedings were initiated to recover duty in terms of rule 14 of the cenvat credit rules, 2004 read with section 11a(1) of the central excise act, 1944.4. the assessee pointed out through a statement that they had not taken any cenvat credit in the months of january and february, 2008 on furnace oil ..... and the honourable mr.justice r.karuppiah civil miscellaneous appeal (npd) no.2465 of 2011 and mp.no.1 of 2011 the commissioner of central excise, salem-1. .. appellant vs m/s.burn standard co.ltd., salem-5. .. respondent appeal under section 35g of the central excise act, 1944 against the final order no.609 of 2010 dated 17.5.2010 on .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
..... respondent, vide pre-deposit-cum-appeal order no.163 and 164/2013 (m-st) (pd) dated 07.02.2013 issued under section 35f central excise act, 1944 read with section 85 of the finance act, 1994 in a.no. 432 of 2011(m-st) and 627/2012 (m-st) and quash the same.3. the case of the petitioner in a nut-shell is as ..... proceedings vide pre-deposit cum appeal order no.163 and 164/2013 (m-st) (pd) dated 07.02.2013 issued under section 35f central excise act, 1944 read with section 85 of the finance act, 1994 in a.no. 432 of 2011(m-st) and 627/2012 (m-st) and quash the same. for petitioner : mr. v.s. manoj for m/s. k.vaitheeswaran for ..... respondent : mr.m.santhanaraman, scgsc .. .. .. o r d e r heard mr.v.s. manoj, learned counsel for the petitioner and mr.m.santhanaraman, learned senior central government standing .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
..... if any person is aggrieved by the order of the original authority, on appeal, it is mandatory to pre-deposit the amount as per the provisions of the finance act or the central excise act as the case may be, and in case there is any hardship, it is for the authority concerned to look into the same. in the instant case, ..... the respondent in the impugned proceedings vide pre-deposit cum appeal order no.169/2013 (m-st) (pd) dated 07.02.2013 issued under section 35f central excise act, 1944 read with section 83 of the finance act, 1994 in a.no.336 of 2012(m-st) and quash the same. for petitioner : mr.k.vaitheeswaran for respondent : mr.m.santhanaraman, scgsc ..... merely gives instructions. (b) while so, there was a demand of service tax, vide two show cause notices, dated 13.09.2010 and 18.08.2011 for the period april 2009 to march 2011 under the management, maintenance and repair services and on the amounts paid under extended warranty period being the recipient of such services. (c) the show cause .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
..... 3.2010 passed by the 1st respondent and the consequential notice of demand issued under section 87(b)(i) of the finance act, 1994 in c.no.v/16/70/09-st dated 27.9.2011 and quash the same as violative of principles of natural justice, illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and without authority of law. ..... , connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 30.06.2014 internet :yes/no tsi to 1. the assistant commissioner of central excise, 1, vallalar nagar, manjakuppam, cuddalore-607 00q.2. the chief general manager (finance), corporate office, neyveli lignite corporation, neyveli. b.rajendran,j tsi w.p no.15276 of 2014 30.06.2014 ..... managing partner venkatesan, no.y-210, block no.29, neyveli-607 807. ... petitioner vs.1. the assistant commissioner of central excise, 1, vallalar nagar, manjakuppam, cuddalore-607 00q.2. the chief general manager (finance), corporate office, neyveli lignite corporation, neyveli. ... respondents writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india praying .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
..... tax, with interest, penalty, etc., had been reduced to rs.4 lakhs under section 35-f of the central excise act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') made applicable to the service tax as per section 83 of the finance act and the balance amount was waived, is called in question, seeking to quash the same as unlawful, arbitrary and ..... the petitioner to show cause as to why a sum of rs.47,93,649/- towards service tax, should not be demanded under section 73(1) of the finance act, 1994, apart from demand of interest. however, the petitioner filed reply, dated 19.1.2010 to the adjudicating authority, and the adjudication proceedings were transferred to the ..... in terms of notification no.6/2009, service tax, dated 30.1.2009 issued by the chief commissioner of central excise, chennai zone. the counsel for the petitioner appeared before the then adjudicating authority on 14.3.2011 and made submissions and the successor-adjudicating authority fixed hearing on 27.1.2012, and the counsel for the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
..... rendered by them during the period from june 2007 to march 2010 and from april 2010 to march 2011 respectively, is recoverable from them under section 73(1) of the finance act, 1994 along with appropriate interest under section 75 of the act. accordingly, the superintendent of central excise vide his letters dated 01.6.2010 and 18.6.2010 had intimated the petitioner stating ..... ,823.00 05.11.2012 : rs.22,39,370.00 3. according to the petitioner, the respondent has wrongly interpreted section 11(a)(1) of the central excise act and section 73(1) of the finance act in invoking the extended period for demanding tax and also wrongly concluded that by not registering and paying service tax in time, the petitioner has an intention .....
Tag this Judgment!